June 12, 2004

Comments on the US1 Bus Rapid Transit Proposal

The US1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal is being marketed as a tool to promote smart growth and relieve US1 traffic congestion. Given the proposed elimination of the Princeton Branch rail service and our belief that "Busways" along US1 and elsewhere will encourage sprawl, we urge the BRT proposal be dropped immediately in favor of more productive alternatives.

The current NJ Transit (NJT) #600 bus route is severely under-utilized, unreliable and has a circuitous route. It is an alternative only to those with no other means to travel. BRT would be unable to serve the sprawl development without being anything more than a re-branded #600 to serve its few patrons. Furthermore, conversion of the Princeton Branch rail service ("Dinky") to bus service is a major step backward, particularly if it is extended onto the streets of Princeton Borough. There, the streets are so congested that service reliability would worsen to the point that it would be no longer be able to make reliable connections to the Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail service. "Dinky" patrons, seeing no other alternative, would then be forced to drive and park at Princeton Junction. Also unclear is whether the ancient, narrow steel bridge over the Delaware & Raritan Canal can be paved over.

BRT prototypes exist in Pittsburgh and Ottawa where they are called "Busways". Freight tracks were paved over replacing high density and slow local bus services rather than a rail service. Those buses focus on serving a rather large city where they navigate local streets. Both systems have yet to even come close to meeting original ridership projections and filling parking lots around its "stations" despite being in operation for 20 to 25 years.

The traffic congestion and sprawl on the US1 corridor in Mercer County is far worse and unsuitable for BRT. Trenton is neither the destination nor a large city. Quite the opposite, US1 serves commercial and residential sprawl with the predominate direction of rush hours being north from Trenton in the AM, and south in the PM. The #600 bus is failing. It runs at 30-minute intervals during rush hours, at a totally unappealing 90-minute intervals at other times. Off-peak service has been cut 50 to 67% over the last several years, and seldom is there more than a van load of people on board at any time. Its route to Plainsboro entails time-consuming wanderings off US1 into corporate parks, shopping malls, and the Princeton Junction rail station to reach customers, where dedicated rights of way would never exist in any case. The only time the bus runs expeditiously is south of Quakerbridge along the Trenton Expressway with no intermediate stops until downtown Trenton. The buses are also far less utilized on that portion. Any dedicated highway right-of-way would be sparsely utilized. For starters it could be opened to High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) at political convenience, ultimately becoming a second US1 for those HOVs. The HOV concept in New Jersey has proven to fail in each case where it has been utilized: I-80 and I-287. It resulted in the encouragement of additional sprawl, running counter to the Governor's Smart Growth Initiative.

Clearly US1 auto users will not switch to buses, whatever they are called. NJ-DOT and NJ Transit should instead focus their efforts on requiring or providing incentives to all local, private bus operators, particularly the University's, to open their bus services to the general public. Most of them serve both the Princeton Junction rail station and points along US1. NJ Transit should restore an intermediate Princeton Branch stop. If NJT dislikes the anomaly of an isolated heavy rail service, then it should consider extending the RiverLINE (RL) along the NEC by building 5th track on the north side of the right-of-way, adding a Lawrenceville or I-295 stop, and through routing service along the Princeton Branch. Splitting the RL service or 2-car consists at Trenton station for the State House and Princeton would work quite well. Transit villages could be constructed at NEC rail stations. Given how the RL, as it approaches ridership targets, is supplanting the #409 bus service, it proves that auto users will switch to rail, but will not switch to a bus that is much slower than either the rail or auto modes.